Representation Review 2021

To prepare our initial proposal for feedback, we looked at three options, and tested these against the requirements of the Local Electoral Act 2001.

To develop these options, we looked at:

• where our communities of interest are
• how these communities of interest are fairly and effectively represented by:
  • the way councillors are elected (ie at large, wards or a mixture of both)
  • the total number of councillors
  • ward numbers, names, and boundaries
  • community board arrangements
  • ensuring each councillor represents about the same number of people
• the electoral system we use
• any arrangements for Māori wards.

Council resolved, on 15 July 2020, to keep the Single Transferable Voting (STV) voting system for the 2022 elections.

Council also resolved, on 20 May 2021, to establish a Māori ward.

Council undertook preliminary consultation between 5 and 16 July, and formal consultation between 8 September and 8 October 2021.

When a Māori ward is established, the total number of eligible voters is split into two groups – the general electoral population and the Māori electoral population. These numbers are then used to figure out ward boundaries.

General ward councillors are elected by voters on the general electoral roll, and Māori ward councillor(s) by voters on the Māori electoral roll.

Each general ward Councillor must represent approximately the same number of people. We are allowed a variance from this number of +/- 10%.

After the Māori electoral population is separated out from the total electoral population, the current wards don’t meet this criteria (see the table below), so we need to make some changes.

To help us land on our final proposal, we engaged with the Porirua City community between 5 and 16 July 2021, and formally on our initial proposal between 8 September and 8 October 2021.

Council has considered this feedback and determined to adopt its initial proposal as its final proposal.

On 11 November 2021 the Council considered the 17 submissions received. Six submissions were in favour of the Council’s proposal and 11 submissions contained objections to various elements of the proposal.

The responses to these submissions that were adopted by Council at its meeting on 11 November 2021 are as follows:

Response to submissions 1, 3, 10, 11, and 12 regarding the establishment of ward or community board to represent the rural community of interest:

1. Several submissions objected to the initial proposal and recommended it be changed to establish a fourth ward, electing one councillor, representing the rural community of interest.
2. Based upon nine councillors being elected from general wards, each Councillor represents approximately 5,877 people (+/- 10%, for a range of between 5,290 and 6,866).
3. Officers sought the general electoral population of 33 meshblock areas corresponding with the “rural” and “rural lifestyle” zones in the proposed district plan. These meshblocks are shown below:

Map: Rural mesh blocks identified.

1. StatsNZ have confirmed that 1,370 people live in the 33 rural meshblocks identified. Should a ward be established for this area, with one general ward councillor being elected, this ward would have a -76.6% variation.
2. Under the Act, wards can be non-compliant with the 10%+/- rule if it would provide effective representation of a community of interest within island or isolated communities.[1] The Guidelines adopted by the Local Government Commission indicate that it is a significant bar to be considered an isolated community, including that a significant degree of physical isolation exists.
3. An example of an isolated community recognised by the Commission is Banks Peninsula in the Christchurch City Council district, which the Commission allowed to continue with a -61.47% variance.
4. It is unlikely that the rural community of interest would meet the significant test set by the Commission. It is therefore recommended that a rural ward not be established.
5. Submitters 10 and 11 also raised the possibility of a community board for the rural area being established.
6. As part of its initial proposal, Council determined when it adopted the initial proposal that it would not establish community boards as effective representation would not be enhanced by establishing community boards having considered the identified communities of interest in terms of distinctiveness, representation, access and effective governance.
7. The SA2 (‘statistical area 2’, which is a larger grouping of meshblocks) areas of Paekākāriki Hill and Pāuatahanui (which encompasses the communities of Paekākāriki Hill, Judgeford, Pāuatahanui), contain a general electoral population of 1,330. Given this, and other methods used by Council to engage with this community, councillors are likely to provide sufficient representation of communities of interest and therefore ensure adequate mechanisms of representation and access between elected members and the population.
8. Section 19N of the Act requires Council when considering submissions to provide reasons for any amendments to the initial proposal and to provide reasons for any rejection of submissions. These reasons are required to be included in the public notice advising of the final proposal.

Map: SA2 areas of Paekākāriki Hill and Pāuatahanui